The biggest difference between options and futures exists that futures contracts need that the transaction specified by the contract must take place on the date specified. Options, on the other hand, provide the buyer of the contract the right — but not the obligation — to execute the transaction.
<h3>What is the difference between futures contract and options?</h3>
A futures contract is put into effect on the specified date. The buyer buys the underlying asset on this date. In the meantime, the buyer of an options contract is free to execute the agreement at any point before the expiration date.
You may therefore purchase the asset anytime you believe the circumstances are favorable. A futures contract gives the holder the option to purchase or sell a certain item at a predetermined price on a predetermined future date. Options allow the option to purchase or sell a certain asset at a specific price on a specific date, but not the obligation to do so.
Hence, The biggest difference between options and futures exists that futures contracts need that the transaction specified by the contract must take place on the date specified. Options, on the other hand, provide the buyer of the contract the right — but not the obligation — to execute the transaction.
To learn more about futures contract refer to:
brainly.com/question/1193397
#SPJ4
Financial Resource -
Managing capital funds and cash flow, collection, and payment of debts.
Correct answer choice is:
<h2>C. Peter Irons' anti-establishment political views (evidenced in pacifism and socialism) may influence his scholarship.</h2><h3>Explanation:</h3>
Peter Irons received the full scholarship in Political Science program at the Boston College. Soon after the completion of his graduation in Sociology, he was jailed due to his contradictory statements to the army. In the jail, he was concorded with the Zinns thinking. Zinn's was the instructor of political science at Boston College and composed the book at Race and Vietnam War. Peter send the application to study the doctoral program in Political Science at Boston College under his guidance.
I would say B, it sounds better then the rest.
Answer:
Let’s analyze this conflict from the perspective of a conservation biologist.
Explanation:
<u>Conservation biologist</u> knows the<em> value of all species naturally present in a given ecosystem and the need to maintain balance in numbers of each species. Thus, uncontrolled hunting of wild carnivores may lead to reduction in their number and ultimately endanger the given species of carnivores in a particular country</em>.
Meanwhile, conservation biologist understands that certain people perceive <em>commons</em>, as a shared resource system, in a different way. In particular, people with particular interest and needs (<u>farmers and ranchers</u>), affected by the natural functioning of this system. From their perspective, resources that do not belong to any other particular individual and which are considered to be common, can be neglected if they interfere with farmer business. If the commons are unregulated it can lead to a greater abuse, thus the 'tragedy of commons'.
